Zero Tolerance Policy in Youth Development Programs: Consequences and Alternatives

Background and Purpose:

The zero tolerance policy was created for the purpose of serving the public good, but the outcomes related to its application in school practice have been less than favorable. The policy proved to be detrimental, especially to the educational and life outcomes of minority students in urban school settings. The present study considers the potential impact of zero tolerance policy on youth outcomes in the context of Job Corps, the nation’s largest, most comprehensive education and job training program primarily in a residential setting. The present study therefore seeks to contribute to an understanding of how youth development programs and policies can be improved to better support youth who are neither enrolled in school nor participating in the U.S. labor market.

Methods:

Job Corps serves youths from disadvantaged backgrounds, most of whom have not completed high school. Over 75 percent are members of racial or ethnic minority groups. Half of eligible applicants lived in single-parent households when they were 14 years old, and half lived in families that received public assistance while they were growing up. This study uses data from the National Job Corps Study conducted from 1993 to mid-2003. Using pooled data on 8,813 program group and 5,514 control group members randomly selected from among nearly 81,000 eligible applicants nationwide, this study executed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to examine whether the Job Corps policy change, introduced during the sample intake, modified the program effects on youth outcomes, including employment, earnings, and criminal involvement at the 48 months follow-ups.

Results:

The constitution of zero tolerance policy, which excluded the most disadvantaged youth from the post-policy cohort, changed the body of Job Corps participants demographically. Results illustrate that Job Corps policy change moderated the program effects, especially for criminal behavior (F = 4.70, df = 1, p <.03), indicating that the program impacts operated differently for the pre-policy cohort and the post-policy cohort. Specifically, individuals who enrolled in the Job Corps program after the policy change showed a lower level of criminal involvement than those who enrolled in the program before the policy change. However, the program impacts alone were not statistically significant (F = 0.21, df = 1, p >.10), suggesting that the program impacts depended solely on the implementation of zero tolerance.

Conclusions and Implications:   

This study directly addresses the potential unequal distribution of opportunities, that is, access to resources and life chances that facilitate attainment of desirable outcomes. In this specific case, the zero tolerance produced differing opportunities among the disadvantaged. Previous studies have found that disadvantaged youth do not benefit significantly from participation in nonresidential training programs. While participants who remain in the program have to overcome comparatively smaller difficulties, the excluded youths may have to face major barriers that may ultimately generate a significantly larger social cost. The results of this investigation will invigorate policy efforts that can promote a range of approaches (e.g., reforming zero tolerance, alternative practice) to engage youth to improve their life chances by accessing opportunities and resources.